Background Press Call on the Ceasefire Deal Between Israel and Lebanon

Via Teleconference 4:07 P.M. EST MODERATOR: Thanks, everyone, for joining this call. I know you just heard from the President, but we wanted to provide you a little bit more detail and background. As a reminder, this call is on background, attributable to a senior administration official. For your awareness, not for your reporting, on the line today we have [senior administration official]. He'll provide a few thoughts at the top, and then we'll take your questions. With that, I'll turn it over to you. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you, Eduardo. And good afternoon, everyone. As you just heard from the President, he received the calls from Prime Minister Netanyahu and spoke earlier with - just before that, with Prime Minister Mikati of Lebanon. Both have informed him that their governments had accepted the U.S. proposal, and with French support. And so that ceasefire is now going to go into effect at 4:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, so Wednesday morning local time in Israel and Beirut. 4:00 a.m. it will go into effect. At that point, all fire will stop from all parties. Israeli troops who are in occupying territory in Lebanon will hold their positions. They will not withdraw. But a 60-day period will start in which the Lebanese military and security forces will begin their deployment towards the south. This is a process that cannot happen overnight or in several days, and therefore there is this period to prevent any vacuums from being formed, where as the Lebanese military deploys and reaches the south, the Israeli military will withdraw. So this is - when we say 60 days, we don't mean that at the end of the 60 days the Israeli troops will withdraw, but rather, by the time we reach somewhere in the 50 to 60 days, all Israeli troops will be gone. So it will be a phased withdrawal in different sectors where the Israelis are over time. So in the first couple of weeks, you'll already start seeing some of those troops withdraw until we reach the end, again, no later than or no longer than 60 days for this process to happen. That is the tenets of what's happening over the next several days. And different from previous agreements, specifically the 2006 where Hezbollah was supposed to withdraw to north of the Litani, and UNIFIL was supposed to verify it later, in reality, Hezbollah never withdrew, and UNIFIL was never able to perform that task. Therefore, there is an agreed-upon map that is roughly north of the Litani line, although it deviates some and goes further north than the Litani in certain areas. The Lebanese military will receive authorization and instruction from the Lebanese government to where they are, again, both authorized and instructed to fulfill their mission and to ensure that both they take position in the south and that Hezbollah is moving north of the line that was agreed on in the LAF deployment plan, and all their heavy weaponry is removed. They will also be patrolling the area and ensuring that if there's any remaining infrastructure or remaining weaponry, that it is removed and that no such infrastructure can be rebuilt, again, in that area. The United States, together with France, are going to be joining an existing mechanism referred to as the tripartite mechanism. This is something that was created shortly after the 2006 war to include UNIFIL, the U.N. force in Lebanon, and Israel and Lebanon. It will now - the agreement states that it will be reformulated and enhanced to include France and to be chaired by the United States. What this means is that the United States, both through diplomats and military personnel, are going to be receiving any complaints by either side of any potential violations, if they are there. They will work with the Lebanese army to make sure that its capacity is building, its training is - the necessary training is provided, and that information can flow on a real-time basis to make sure that any potential violations are deterred. And this will be done throughout the territory. As the President said, there will be no U.S. combat troops in the area, but there will be military support for the LAF, as we've done in the past. But in this case, it will be specifically done with the Lebanese army and in conjunction with the French military as well. There is another element here, which is something called the MTC, the Military Technical Committee, which has been revived by us a few months ago, and that includes several other countries’ militaries who will be providing additional support, equipment, training, and financial support - and financial resources to the Lebanese army and security services. The idea here is that, unlike in 2006 where the international community reached the agreement and then abandoned the scene, here we remain committed to be on the ground day to day, watch what's happening, and to let everybody know, whether it's Hezbollah or other organiza- - other terrorist organizations, that the world is watching. Next, the international community is going to be working on as quickly as possible establishing raising resources to support both the Lebanese army and supporting a reconstruction and economic build-out of Lebanon. Again, learning from the mistakes of the past, where Hezbollah was the only organization that was doing any work - did very little, but it was the only one that did some reconstruction in South Lebanon - I think it is in our interest collectively as the international community to support economic growth and to bring to Lebanon back to health. Hezbollah is extremely weak at this moment, both militarily and politically, and this is the opportunity for Lebanon to reestablish its sovereignty over its territory, to appoint a president, and to attract investment so it can return to economic normalcy and independence. Again, the ultimate goal that Israel set out at the beginning of this conflict, when Hezbollah attacked Israel in support of Hamas a few hours after the October 7 attacks, was to return people to their homes in the north as safely and securely as possible and that that security would not be a temporary security guarantee, but a durable ceasefire that they can trust. That is where we are today. And I'll end with where the President started. Israel has had tremendous gains on the battlefield against Hezbollah, taking out most of its senior leadership and taking out a significant portion of its military capabilities. But you cannot win long-term security on the battlefield alone. It requires a political settlement that is leveraged by the military gains. And that's where we are now. I think, for the people of Lebanon, I'll repeat what the President said. Hezbollah didn't ask the permission of the Lebanese people, nor did it represent them when they decided to join the Hamas attacks, or a few hours after the Hamas attacks. This is a war that no one in Lebanon - most Lebanese did not want. So it is important that now they can return to their homes too, with security - both security from foreign invasion, as well as from internal. So, with that, I can tell you that this has been a long process of negotiation over the last couple mo- - few months and with significant intensity over the last several weeks in order to bring it to a close. And I'm glad that we were able to achieve what the President - what President Biden had charged us with, which is to try to bring this conflict to an end and to now - not stop, and use this as a stepping stone towards getting a ceasefire deal in Gaza and bringing the hostages home. I'll stop there and take questions. MODERATOR: Thank you. Our first question is going to go to the line of Felicia Schwartz. You should be able to unmute yourself. Q Hi. Thanks so much. Just wondering if you guys have briefed the Trump team on this effort and if they've expressed that they're committed to it. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks. Good question. Obviously, they were not involved in these negotiations, which reached their most intense point before the election. And just several days before the election, Israel had asked for me to come out to Jerusalem to meet with the Prime Minister, where he told me that he thought there was a window, and I told him that if Israel and Lebanon were serious about it, we can get into an intense period. And over the next few weeks, that's what we did. After the election, when I thought the negotiations had reached a point that I could see the light at the end of the tunnel for the first time, I briefed President-elect Trump's senior national security team on the tenets of the deal and my expectations that it would likely - that there was a higher likelihood of it coming to fruition. I felt that they needed to know what we were negotiating and what the commitments were. I did another round of that just in the last 24 and 48 hours. They seem to be supportive and for the obvious reason that I think they agreed that this is good for Israel, as Prime Minister Netanyahu just said, it is good for Lebanon, as their government has said, and it is good for the national security of the United States. And most importantly, doing it now versus later will save countless lives on both sides. MODERATOR: Next up, we'll go to Humeyra. You should be able to unmute yourself. Q Hi, Eduardo. Thanks. Can you hear me? MODERATOR: Yes, we can hear you. Q Okay. Thanks. Just a couple of things. I want to ask about this idea that Israel can go in whenever it wants, whenever there's a violation, or whenever it sees a threat. Can you just describe the parameters of that? Who's going to decide? Will LAF or UNIFIL get an opportunity to deal with that violation directly, or is Israel going to be the sole party that determines what that violation is? And you also talked about how you went back and at some point you said that you saw the light at the end of the tunnel. These negotiations have been going on for such a long time. Can you tell us what exactly made you feel hopeful about this one? And super quickly: When is this new push for a Gaza ceasefire will start? And why is Turkey - is it now a broker in this? The President mentioned it, and it hasn’t been a broker before. Thank you so much. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, there's a lot there. Look, the mechanism that has been created, or that has been enhanced, I should say, to include the United States and France, the whole point of it is, as violations come, is to make sure that that is the mechanism that works with the LAF and other security forces to address and to prevent it. But the President was very clear this is - we're not making any - there's no secrets here. The President said if there is a direct threat to Israel due to not just any violation, but a violation that poses a direct threat to Israel, then Israel, just like any other country in a similar situation, would have to address it. But we have built a - we have discussed this issue with the parties for a very long time, and felt that we could put the necessary - if we use the tools that we have in Lebanon to not take - and not take our eye off the ball, that will not be necessary. So we have to - we are - I'm confident that if there's any need for Israeli action, it will be - come hopefully no time soon and - or perhaps never, and very rare if it has to happen. But if everything - if the parties on all sides implement this agreement as they have committed to do, there should not be a need by either side. And I just want to note: What the President said is tied to what it says in the agreement itself, which is that both Lebanon and Israel retain the right of self-defense in accordance with international law. And I'll leave it there. I think the second part of the question was about what gave me the - was the light at the end of the tunnel. Look, when you do these kind of negotiations for a long time in different parts of the world, as I have, you sometimes get a sense when is - when things get into the final lane where the parties are not only close, but that the will is there and the desire is there, and the stars are aligned. And I felt that way in mid-October - mid- to late October, I felt that this was - there was something about a change in attitude in both countries, and that's why we made the push. We had to make some changes to what we were discussing at that point. As you know, there have been a lot of leaks of different things that are not what we've agreed to in the end. But I just - I can't put a specific point on it, but we got to a point where there's an alignment in both Lebanon and Israel. And my motivation was just seeing the level of destruction and I think the realization - and loss of life - and the realization, I think on both sides, that the battlefield is not going to be the final answer, and at some point you have to know when to say this is the moment to leverage or to end the battlefield and to move to the next step, which was the deal. As far as Turkey, look, I think what the President meant is that, in fact, we have certain individuals and parties are now spending time in Turkey, and so they were added. But it was not to suggest that they are a broker or a negotiator, but it's to say that we will leave no stone unturned in trying to do this. Look, I think this is a - what happened today has the potential for a game changer. And here, you know me, I don't speak in hyperboles on this, but if you can think of one thing that was going to put pressure on Hamas, on people that don't really care about the lives of their people or, quite frankly, their own lives, it’s very hard to therefore get to a leverage point or a pressure point. But I think the realization, when they now watch the news and realize that Hezbollah has decided to abandon them and delink the two conflicts, there's no one coming for their support anymore, I think that's a powerful change of reality on the ground, and we have to see if they are - if that's enough to be able to make a change in the posture on the negotiations. MODERATOR: Next up, we'll go to Peter Baker. Q Hi. Can you hear me? Sorry. Thanks very much for this. Appreciate it. Can you give us any more sense of where the President thinks he can make progress in the next 55 days on the larger Saudi normalization deal that he talked about again today? How realistic is that? Does it have to be done with cooperation of the Trump team, given that anything that would be approved and require Senate ratification would almost certainly happen after January 20th? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yeah, thanks, Peter. Look, as you know, we have - the President has felt strongly that normalization is something that would be the ultimate change in the Middle East, that could change the entire picture. Just a few weeks before the October 7th attacks, we were all in India, where the main part of the G20 was a signing ceremony with the President, led by the President of the United States together with the Crown Prince and the leaders of UAE and other countries. That was with the vision of normalization. So we've done - a lot of the work has been done, but clearly where we are in Gaza is holding us back. I think that the - from what we have - in the conversations we've had over the last several hours, maybe 24 hours, we have come to the conclusion that there is an opportunity - a window of opportunity here, if we can get some changes in Gaza, to be able to reach this normalization now. I think the political and geopolitical stars of both are aligned, and we're going to see what we can do over the next 50 whatever days it is. And to that end, we are clear-eyed that there is a new administration coming in, and anything that we will do on this, they - we won't do this unless they know what we're doing. And I think, again, this is in the best interest of the Middle East and inherently in the best interest of the United States. And I have gotten every indication that the new team coming in are supportive of this approach. MODERATOR: Next up, we'll go to Jared Szuba. You should be able to unmute yourself. Q Hi, sir. Thanks for doing this. Just to clarify, you mentioned that Israel will retain the right to respond to a direct threat. Is that part of the deal that the Lebanese government is to sign, or is that a part of the separate letter of guarantees that's been reported? So, I mean, before Israel were to take action, would a violation have to be confirmed by the new tripartite mechanism? And then secondly, I'm wondering if you could clarify how many U.S. military personnel will be involved in this and where will they be based out of. Is this going to be based out of the embassy and attached to the (inaudible) mechanism? Or - SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So the agreement that both parties - the ceasefire that both parties agreed to specifically says that both countries retain the right to self-defense in accordance with international law. The President elaborated on that. And in a day, nobody should be breaking the agreement on either side, and both should fulfill it. And this will become an academic conversation for experts to discuss but not to be executed. And so, on the other issue of the military: Look, this is more - as you know, in multiple places around the world, we provide technical assistance, capacity building. If we need folks on the ground, they will be based. That would be done in, I assume, the embassy. The President was clear that no troops would be deployed to the south, and we are not going to be engaging in - I don't expect anybody to engage in any kind of combat operations of any kind. This is all in security assistance and other kinds of related activities. MODERATOR: Next up, we'll go to Karen DeYoung. Q Hi. Thank you. I just want to go back once again to this same question, because with all due respect, I don't feel like you've answered it yet. Does Israel have the right, when it determines that there's been a violation, to use military force? Or does it need to wait for approval from the LAF? And secondly, on the Saudi deal, you said that you really see the opportunity for progress there. Members of the Israeli cabinet have said as recently as yesterday and today that there will never be a Palestinian state. Do you see any give on either the Israeli side or the Saudi side on whether that is likely to happen or that there can be a credible path that Israel agrees to that will allow the Saudis to move ahead? Thanks. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Karen, I'll start with your second question, and I'll say: Over the last many years, I've been involved in negotiations in a number of places, and they usually start - or at some point during that period, there are senior leaders who come out with two words: “never” and “always.” “We will never do this, and we will always insist on that.” And that doesn't necessarily hold, because when you have that kind of a position, you don't reach an agreement. So I don't get too excited when I hear those kinds of statements. I tend to ignore them and only listen to what is being said in the room. And as I said before on Lebanon, ceasefire negotiations (inaudible), if we feel that both parties - or, in this case, maybe a number of parties - are serious about it and that there is some deal space here where there's some compromise that everybody has to make, then I think that we will try to take advantage of that opportunity and reach a historic agreement that is in everybody's interest. I'm sorry you feel that I did not answer the question. I have. I think you're trying to take complex, you know, decisions and put them into a single sentence. But there are going to be a potential for violations on one side or the other. Before, it would require the Israeli government and the Lebanese, whomever in their system, to contact the U.N.; the U.N. would then have to figure out a way to contact the Israelis or the Lebanese, the other side, maybe file a violation at the U.N. in New York at the end of a quarter or something. But here, what we're committing to is that, one, that's not a mailbox anymore, but rather we will serve as a live messaging, making sure that whenever there is a view of a violation, specifically a serious violation, it is addressed immediately. And as I said, if it is not addressed by the responsible parties, then - and it develops into a direct threat, then Israel would have the right to defend itself. It's not a simple question to answer, but that is the principal rule that everybody has agreed to or, rather, everybody understands. And I'll leave it there. Next. MODERATOR: Next up we'll go to Andrea Mitchell. Q Thank you. Can you describe how the negotiation proceeded? How do we know that Hezbollah has signed on to this? The President said that he spoke to the prime ministers of Israel and Lebanon. I know, for practical purposes, it does, but can we say this is an agreement between Israel and Hezbollah? And what options does Hezbollah have - to follow up on Karen - if they feel that Israel is violating it? SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's a fair question. The commitments made by the Lebanese government apply to Hezbollah. As you know, Andrea, we don't negotiate with Hezbollah directly. We negotiate with the state of Lebanon. And the government of Lebanon has to take responsibility for what happens in Lebanon. Now, as I negotiate with the leadership of the government, we are aware that they are also in communication with both Hezbollah and with Iran. And the expectations are clear. So when this is reached, this ceasefire is reached, it represents all the entities that need to join this understanding in announcing the ceasefire and holding to it. And that is not just my understanding, but that is - we have verified that adherence by all parties in Lebanon. And at the end of the day, the opportunity that presents itself today in Lebanon with this ceasefire is for the government to assert its control across a territory and functions that, frankly, they haven't done in 50 years. And so, that is what we are supporting them, and I think what a lot of - most people in Lebanon are most excited about is that this is now an opportunity for the country to reassert its independence after decades of different countries, organizations, and entities occupying it in one form or another. But fully expect adherence. I don't expect any - I would hope that - just as I hope that Hezbollah will not violate this agreement, I also hope Israel doesn't violate this agreement. And if they do, I expect the Lebanese army and the Lebanese security forces to work with this mechanism to address it directly with the Israelis on an immediate basis, whether it's incursions into their territory or anything else that they do that they had agreed not to do. So, I think we will - we are seeking to have a violation-free implementation. And if violations do occur, we are expecting that they are addressed effectively, efficiently, and on a timely manner. MODERATOR: We have time for a couple more questions. Next up, we'll go to Nadia Charters. Q Thank you, Eduardo. Hi, [senior administration official]. Are you aware of any negotiation, whether it's directly or indirectly, with Iran to approve this deal or at least to give Hezbollah the green light to go ahead? Also, the French Special Envoy, Mr. Le Drien, will be visiting Beirut tomorrow. Do we expect you to be back in the region, or do you think that your mission is over by now? And finally, there were some reports that Israel might get more lethal weapons in return for agreeing to this deal. Can you confirm that these reports are true? Thank you. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So as you know, I do not negotiate with Iran. And I would say this to the Lebanese people: I don't think Iran should be making decisions over what happens in the territory of Lebanon. It should be - it is none of their business. It is only - it should only be decided by those who represent the people of Lebanon, whether it's the speaker and the prime minister in the cabinet, in the acting capacity, of course, and inshallah, if a president is selected. To that end, Mr. Le Drien and I have been in close contact over the last many months, as he has had a mission from President Macron to try to work to see if the political impasse in Lebanon can be resolved and to get a president. Multiple parties in Lebanon have said that after a ceasefire, they would immediately turn to selecting a president. I call on them to do that now. The United States believes that two years without a president is long enough. We now have achieved a ceasefire that will go into effect in just a few hours. And there's no time like the present to take action and select a president and make that part of a signal to the people that this is the moment of renewal in Lebanon. As far as the weapons, there is - there was no - no part of this negotiation involved weapons on either side.MODERATOR: Next up, we'll go to Aurelia. Q Hi, and thank you so much for taking my question and for doing this call. I was just wondering, can you elaborate on this being a stepping stone for a deal in Gaza? Because one could also argue that now that hostilities are supposed to cease in Lebanon, the Israeli army could, like, regroup in a way and concentrate on its offensive in Gaza. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's always possible to look at any event as a potential stepping stone for negative. I see here - I choose to see the opportunity here, and I think it's the more accurate read. I can tell you that we have been disappointed in Hamas's lack of seriousness and approach to negotiations over the last several months. The President, I thought, was as clear as one can be that they have not been seriously negotiating about a hostage deal. This is the moment - if anyone in Hamas thought that there was a broad support for their cause, I think today they have learned that that is not the case. So, again, I said before, I have a feeling sometimes when I negotiate when we're there. I can't tell you that that's how I feel at the moment. I can just say that I think this is an opportunity to test the proposition that we can reach an agreement at this time. And I think it's incumbent upon us to do that. President Biden has felt, as he has ended the speech, that no matter - that if there is - as long as there's an opportunity to get to a deal in Gaza that both addresses the terrible state that the Gazan people have had to endure and that brings the hostages, including the Americans, home, that it is incumbent upon us to do everything that we can to achieve that. MODERATOR: We've got time for one last question. We'll go to the line of Amichai Stein. Q Hello. Thank you very much. Two questions. The first one that Israeli officials claim that the U.S. threatened with arms embargo in the U.N. Security Council not to veto with regarding Lebanon, so to call for an immediate ceasefire. That's my first question. Was there something like this? And my second question is: Is the Russian going to have a role in Syria to help prevent Iran from supplying weapons to Hezbollah? Thank you. SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks. So, on the first question, short answer: No. This topic never came up, not once. It's not only that we didn't threaten it; we - literally, the topic never came up. So I don't even know how to answer the question any other way. It is completely news to me, and none of us have heard of this before your question. Second, look, there is no doubt that what we all must focus on is to make sure that Iran does not continue to use Syria as a highway of weapons into Lebanon. There are a number of elements that are related. This is a ceasefire that has to do with the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, but there's no doubt that part of that is to make sure that Hezbollah is not rearming and rebuilding their infrastructure. Part of the answer to that question is inside Lebanon, and that's what this deal addresses. And part of the answer to that question is going to have to be in Syria, and that is a matter for another call and another conversation on another day. MODERATOR: Thanks. That's all the time we have for today. If there are any follow-up questions, please feel free to reach out to us. As a reminder, this call was on background to a senior administration official, and the embargo is now lifted. Thanks again for joining. 4:44 P.M. EST The post Background Press Call on the Ceasefire Deal Between Israel and Lebanon appeared first on The White House.